9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Application u/s 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 17th July, 2001.
Delay Condonation Application: The application, CM 6/2003, sought to condone a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal, but failed to provide any cause for the delay as required by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Another application, CM 8/2003, was filed for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. The court dismissed both applications due to lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, emphasizing that once the limitation period expires, the right accrues to the other side and cannot be taken away without valid reasons. Validity of Appellate Tribunal's Order: The Appellate Tribunal's order dated 17th July, 2001, was challenged by the assessee who had filed a refund application u/r 57F(4) for excise duty wrongfully recovered. The Tribunal rejected the application citing non-compliance with prescribed form and lack of necessary documents. However, the Tribunal later accepted the refund claim, stating that the correct position of law was realized by the assessee, and the refund claim should not be denied solely based on formality issues. The Tribunal held that the refund claim filed subsequently was a continuation of the original claim and should not be time-barred under Section 11B. Court's Decision: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the approach was in line with established legal principles. The Court emphasized that the right to refund should not be denied to the assessee, especially when the application was submitted within the prescribed time. Refund is the right of the assessee, and procedural irregularities should not impede this right. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on its merits, affirming the Tribunal's ruling regarding the refund claim.
|
